|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 24, 2010 15:39:15 GMT -5
not like what you may think, but rather, a system in which I can pay X amount of an expiring players salary as cut salary so that they can be dealt....in this case Steve Nash's ridiculous 25+ million expiring, I would pay 15 million as cut salary and then I could deal him as a 10 million expiring...if you like the idea (my articulation isn't so good) ducky, I will make this a poll
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Montana on May 24, 2010 15:44:33 GMT -5
I kinda like this. I remember last version of UOSL Dwight Howard was a 38 million exp. You can't do anything with a 25 million expiring let alone something even bigger. This would only help the trade market. I would be in favor of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jediskywalker on May 24, 2010 15:44:34 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by donatello2424 on May 24, 2010 15:51:55 GMT -5
Not a fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinez on May 24, 2010 15:52:43 GMT -5
Idc
|
|
|
|
Post by martinez on May 24, 2010 15:54:45 GMT -5
If this is implemented it needs to start next season though can't make up a rule right away because it benefits you
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Montana on May 24, 2010 15:55:40 GMT -5
What Chris said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 24, 2010 15:56:33 GMT -5
If this is implemented it needs to start next season though can't make up a rule right away because it benefits you fine by me....it should be an option though, its no different really than cutting a player, but since rules do not allow me to cut Nash, I have to deal him if I want him gone.... |
|
|
|
Post by jediskywalker on May 24, 2010 15:57:48 GMT -5
This will lead to abuse:
Example:
People scared of a player may or may not re-sign and his contract is starting at 20M.
He offers the 20M 1 year deal and then does this to break it down to 10M knowing that at 20M he will re-sign but at 10M it's an uncertainty. I don't like this shit at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 24, 2010 15:58:33 GMT -5
This will lead to abuse: Example: People scared of a player may or may not re-sign and his contract is starting at 20M. He offers the 20M 1 year deal and then does this to break it down to 10M knowing that at 20M he will re-sign but at 10M it's an uncertainty. I don't like this shit at all. easy fix, only players with bird years |
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Montana on May 24, 2010 15:58:24 GMT -5
Not being able to match salaries happens incredibly frequently. Allowing this to become a rule benefits two teams per transaction and this happens with more than just a few teams per season. It would be more efficient for teams going in any direction. Put this to a vote, I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 24, 2010 15:59:46 GMT -5
actually even easier, only players that are coming off multi year deals can have this applied
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Montana on May 24, 2010 16:00:22 GMT -5
This will lead to abuse: Example: People scared of a player may or may not re-sign and his contract is starting at 20M. He offers the 20M 1 year deal and then does this to break it down to 10M knowing that at 20M he will re-sign but at 10M it's an uncertainty. I don't like this shit at all. This argument actually makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by jediskywalker on May 24, 2010 16:00:29 GMT -5
Ducky would have to track who has had multi year deals... lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by jediskywalker on May 24, 2010 16:00:48 GMT -5
This will lead to abuse: Example: People scared of a player may or may not re-sign and his contract is starting at 20M. He offers the 20M 1 year deal and then does this to break it down to 10M knowing that at 20M he will re-sign but at 10M it's an uncertainty. I don't like this shit at all. This argument actually makes no sense. Then you are stupid. |
|
